Site Mobile Navigation

Interview With the U.S.C.F. President; a Chess Sponsor Says He’s Had Enough

The United States Chess Federation, the governing body of chess in the United States, finds itself in a difficult position following the filing of a federal lawsuit accusing Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who are married and are members of its executive board, of posting inflammatory remarks on the Internet under false names in order to get elected. The lawsuit by Samuel H. Sloan, who ran unsuccessfully for re-election to the board, was brought a week after an administrator of the federation’s Web site published a report showing that Mr. Truong was most likely the author of the posts.

Monday night, the federation’s executive board temporarily suspended the administrator, Brian Mottershead, while the board conducts an investigation into Mr. Mottershead’s report. In an interview Tuesday morning, Bill Goichberg, the president of the federation, said that the investigation, which involves hiring an outside consultant to go over the report’s findings, would “probably take weeks rather than months.”

The allegations that someone had been posting false messages to the federation’s discussion forum as well as to two outside Internet bulletin boards, often in Mr. Sloan’s name, had been rumored for some time. Asked if the federation should have investigated sooner, Mr. Goichberg said, “Nothing was brought to the board’s attention comparable to what Mottershead is presenting.” In the past, Mr. Sloan had accused Mr. Truong of being the impersonator, but, Mr. Goichberg said, “Sloan never presented any evidence to the board. Sloan said that the board should investigate and we thought there is no evidence and why should we spend the money?”

This is not the first time that the federation has encountered problems, although they have rarely been this serious. The latest crisis has led to suggestions on a few blogs that follow chess that perhaps the federation is dysfunctional and should be replaced. Mr. Goichberg said that the problems were inevitable given the structure of the federation. “The U.S.C.F. is a democractic organization and that means there is politics,” Mr. Goichberg said. “Obviously this situation is unfortunate.”

Mr. Goichberg said that he believed that Mr. Mottershead’s report should not have been released publicly but instead should have been taken to the federation’s ethics committee, which he said has the power to censor or reprimand a board member or even recommend the person be removed. Such a recommendation would require a recall election involving the federation’s members with two-thirds of the votes in favor of removal.

Mr. Mottershead said that he did not go to the ethics committee because “I thought it would be a long slow process and based on the technical nature of the evidence, I thought that they would be deadlocked and not be able to make a decision.”

The lawsuit and the investigation are already having repercussions. Dr. Eric Moskow, a Florida doctor specializing in internal medicine, who had pledged to contribute up to $1 million over the next few years to sponsor tournaments, has decided that he does not want to put money into chess in the United States at this time.

In an interview Monday night, he said that he had supported Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong during the election earlier this year, but he felt he could no longer do so. “When you are very wealthy you want the people associated with you dodging bullets, not creating them,” Dr. Moskow said.

In recent years, Dr. Moskow has sponsored tournaments in Argentina and Norway and had planned to divert some of that money to events in the United States, including the Reshevsky Memorial at Texas Tech, where Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong work, next month. Dr. Moskow said that he would still support that tournament, but no others until the federation is either privatized or a rival organization is formed.

“I can’t be wasting my time wondering if some child is posting something and another child is responding,” Dr. Moskow said. “I have been sucked into this political mess and I am not political. All I want to do is give my money away and play chess.” He added, “The only good memories I have of giving money to chess in the U.S. are the scoresheets and the games.”

If the USCF and its board were not in enough trouble already, it is now subject to prosecution of a whistleblower lawsuit, because two USCF website administrators have been dismissed yesterday in direct retaliation for revealing that two board members have engaged in impersonation of a former USCF board member.

“This is an official statement by the USCF (5-0 vote with Paul and I abstaining)

“Recent events have led to charges and counter-charges about false postings on chess websites that may involve USCF members and improper activity by independent contractors working for the USCF. At this time, it must be stressed that none of these claims can be independently substantiated, and the USCF does not support them. The USCF apologizes for any unintended resulting actions.

“The USCF takes seriously its need to protect the privacy of its members and is actively investigating the charges of violation of its privacy policies and actions of its members. The individuals who may have violated these policies have agreed, as of today, to suspend their duties with the USCF until these issues are resolved.”

From the above quote, it is apparent that two USCF employees have been dismissed in retaliation for revealing that two board members have been engaging in criminal activity. Thus, the employees can successfully bring a Whistleblower lawsuit.

“Whistleblowing is disclosing information that an employee, former employee or a member of an organization that he or she reasonably believes is evidence of misconduct or illegal activity. Whistleblowers are most often employees of businesses, but are also commonly employees of government agencies.

“The information of misconduct can include violations of law, rules, regulations and/or direct threats to public interest such as fraud, health, safety violations, abuse of power and corruption.

“When a whistleblower files a discrimination or retaliation claim, they are required to show that they engaged in protected activity, that the employer knew about the activity, subjected him or her to an adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to the adverse action.

“Adverse employment action is a material change in the terms or conditions of employment. Depending upon the circumstances of the case, discrimination can include intimidation of an employee, reduction in pay or hours, disciplinary action, a demotion, denial of overtime, a re-assignment that would impact a future promotion, a denial of a promotion, firing or laying off the employee or the blacklisting of an employee.”

As usual, Sam Sloan makes a statement with no basis in fact. The temporarily suspended admins are not employees. One is a volunteer and one is a contractor.

Also, the article by Dylan McClain continues erroneous reporting. McClain writes, “The allegations that someone had been posting false messages to the *federation’s discussion forum* as well as to two outside Internet bulletin boards, often in Mr. Sloan’s name, had been rumored for some time.”

There has been no dispute as to the identity of authors on the federation’s discussion forum. In fact, each post is accompanied by the poster’s USCF ID number.

It would be nice to see the issue reported accurately, if it must be reported.

Dr. Moskow’s opinions and orientation to USCF chess politics are neither unusual nor even unexpected. I have an opinion that Americans have been talked out of being interested in chess, or simply bored to death, by the topic. Yet the truth is that after very good beginnings in this country the USCF has, for 25 years, not advanced chess into the mainstream one whit more than their windfall gain as result of Fischer’s fame in doing the impossible by defeating the Soviet champion in the middle of the cold war.
Historically, readers should understand that in the 1930’s the USA took part in 4 team olympiads against the strongest chess countrys in the world, and brought home 4 gold medals.
While I think that some organisation is necessary for chess, Dr. Moskow has the right instinct here, and substantial reform is necessary in the country before anything decent, legal, honest or truthful can emerge from the national organisation, ostensibly existing to further the game. I hope new and reformist board members will not throw up their hands when faced by such intrigues, and constant ingenues – and be able to substantially reformat that organisation to become a real basis for chess in the C21st in America.

It is my personal belief that a total , clear and concise accounting should be required of all involved. Those found in fault should be dealt with in the fullest extent possible to insure this type of action will never be a consideration of persons in the future ,for fear of the accountability that will be reguired of them.
If there is guilt let in be layed at the doorstep of those guilty. To black the eye of the USCF and/or chess(the game) and chessplayers as a whole is unnecessary. IMHO

It should be noted that Mr. Goichberg has a history of acrimonuous disputes that stretches back decades. Although he has consolidated power within the USCF for himself, there is no way of knowing how many people such divisivness has driven away from the game.

I share the opinion of Dr. Moskow. Although I have contributed many thousands of dollars to US chess tournaments over the years, I now do so on a much more limited basis. Chess politicians, such as Bill Goichberg, are the reason why.

The United States deserves a better organization than the USCF. Dealings with the USCF have left many players and patrons discouraged and dispirited. We can and should do better.

while I am a mere player mr eade is truly a legend in california chess, to hear he shares my views is not only confirmatory information, it is in fact a confirmation of my gut instinct. I would love to have a round table with him and like people the results of which can become a nidus to promote change. thanks jim, all the best eric

A forum to discuss general USCF issues (Open to USCF members only.)
[…]
12 posts • Page 1 of 1

[…]
Postby Brian Mottershead on Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:49 pm #73094

I have established a section of one my web sites for information related to the current controversy.

The first document I am releasing is a compilation of the some 2500 “Fake Sam Sloan” posts from Usenet. These include not only posts under the Fake Sam Sloan identity but others by the Fake Ray Gordon, Jackass Lafferty, as well as other identities.

If you follow this link, please read the cautions carefully before downloading any of the documents.

I am curious about the following quote you made on the NYT chess blog:

“Mr. Mottershead said that he did not go to the ethics committee because ‘I thought it would be a long slow process and based on the technical nature of the evidence, I thought that they would be deadlocked and not be able to make a decision.’”

I am entirely neutral on this issue, I really am. I am just trying to sort out the truth, the motivations, and the repurcussions from actions of a variety of individuals, including yourself. This quote, however, suggests that you made an affirmative choice to pursue this other than through proper channels; as one entrusted with confidential corporate information, that is highly unusual. Given that the information didn’t consist of what could be deemed “corporate bad acts” why did you believe it not sufficient to follow established policies and procedures?

By the way, I don’t think your claim that you didn’t trust the ethics committee to reach a legitimate conclusion is a relevant response. Frankly, I have as much (if not more) confidence in their ability to get it right collectively as you singlely.
Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer wrote:By the way, I don’t think your claim that you didn’t trust the ethics committee to reach a legitimate conclusion is a relevant response. Frankly, I have as much (if not more) confidence in their ability to get it right collectively as you singlely.

I am not sure what you mean by saying it is not a relevant response. I didn’t go via the Ethics Committee route because I didn’t trust the Ethics Committee.

I thought they would not understand the technical evidence, that they would be cowed by the inevitable Polgar/Truong counter-attack and bullying, and that all this would be going on out of the public eye, where I would be subjected to the same kind of relentless attacks that are now public, only without any support.

I felt strongly that this matter would only be resolved properly if the public was informed and the USCF decision makers were operating in the light of day. Even having taken that approach, with many eyes now trained on the decisionmakers, it isn’t obvious to me that the Executive Board is proceeding correctly. Why are Truong and Polgar being allowed to involve themselves in the proceedings of the Executive Board on this matter? Why was it publicly announced that I have withdrawn from my USCF assignments while this matter is being resolved, and no equivalent announcement was made with respect to Polgar and Truong. Why was the EB in such a headlong rush to announce that I had “voluntarily” suspended my activities, that it could not even wait to find out whether I had actually volunteered to do that? Could Susan and Paul not wait even another few hours to trumpet that on their web site, and continue the process of discrediting me?

With all that going on when the matter has been made a public one, with articles in the New York Times, for goodness sake, what would have happened if it had been private?

Moreover, what useful powers would the Ethics Committee have? In the unlikely event that they could be brought to understand the evidence after the inevitable obfuscation and deflection campaign, withstand the pressure, and vote to censure Truong, that would not remove him from the Executive Board. Do you think he would be honorable about it, like Tanner, and simply resign after an EC vote against him? It seemed to me that it would be inevitable that this matter would end up in the lap of the EB after long tortured months, and that the matter would finally be resolved in the court of public opinion. I decided to short-circuit all of that and start with public opinion, rather than ending with it.

I should add that I reject the notion that the approach I chose instead of the Ethics Committee was not a proper one. In what way was it improper to disclose to the public the general nature of my conclusions?
Last edited by Brian Mottershead on Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Brian Mottershead

[…]

Postby DACP on Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:26 pm #73107

Randy Bauer wrote:By the way, I don’t think your claim that you didn’t trust the ethics committee to reach a legitimate conclusion is a relevant response. Frankly, I have as much (if not more) confidence in their ability to get it right collectively as you singlely.

Quite honestly, I am extremely disappointed in USCF leadership on this issue. Mr. Goichberg’s initial response of send it to the Ethics Committee has about as much punch to it as saying, let’s talk about it a couple of months from now. Also, exactly, what would the Ethics Committee have done with the complaint? Right.

This is a corporate issue which called for corporate leadership.

This is not a minor issue. I encourage others to go to Mr. Mottershead’s site and put in the word Alarie. See the posts there. I’ll even call your attention to the one with my home address and phone number in it. Let me explain what effect that post had on my life – I immediately told my daughter to not answer the door, not answer the phone, and not get the mail. I actually had told others that the phrase of “sending me some love” really sounded like quite the opposite. We had a family discussion about whether this was really “worth it”.

Now, if it turns out that the person who put up those posts with my personal information along with other unsavory depictions is identifiable, I can assure you that it is of extreme personal interest to me. I don’t want to hang someone who didn’t do it and at the same time, I really do want to know for sure who did. I am not the only person who wants this information and as USCF members, we expect the corporate management to take this issue much more seriously then an “ethics complaint”.

For the record, I do not approve of the IP’s being put up on the web. No IP’s had to be posted to prove a point. But as far as having faith that management would have seriously addressed this issue without making the USCF membership aware of it, that is an absolute problem in today’s USCF and part of the reason that this organization is as dysfunctional as it is.
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate

DACP

[…]

Postby mnibb on Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:45 pm #73111

Brian Mottershead wrote: Why are Truong and Polgar being allowed to involve themselves in the proceedings of the Executive Board on this matter? Why was it publicly announced that I have withdrawn from my USCF assignments while this matter is being resolved, and no equivalent announcement was made with respect to Polgar and Truong.

Well, no one but the EB can answer for sure, but it might be that Susan and Paul have been elected to the EB and there has been no ethics violation, censure, or established proof of wrongdoing.

The organization has a proper path to resolution of these issues. Last year that path was attempted properly by folks working within the rules. This year apparently we have decided not to work within the rules. At least that is how it looks to me.
12818435
Mark Nibbelin
Fellow Life Management Institute
Chartered Life Underwriter
Scholastic Chess Organizer.

mnibb

[…]

Postby kbachler on Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:50 pm #73113

[…]

Moreover, you can’t unring a bell.

One can always go to the Ethics Committee, and then the EB etc. and FINALLY public if necessary.

This is a beautiful illustration of why we need to adopt my suggestion to the standards of conduct. Because otherwise members justigy vigilantism, just as has happened here.
Last edited by kbachler on Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[…]

Kevin Bachler

kbachler

Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:08 pm
USCFId: 10854164

[…]

Postby mnibb on Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:52 pm #73114

[…]

Donna, I don’t think any of those posts were put on the USCF web site and most of us had no idea that they are posted. I believe you have every right to seek the truth, but not through the USCF. Why through the USCF? We aren’t the police, the FBI, the CIA… We aren’t law enforcement. We should cooperate with law enforcement when asked, but we should not attempt to be law enforcement.
12818435
Mark Nibbelin
Fellow Life Management Institute
Chartered Life Underwriter
Scholastic Chess Organizer.

Why is your [i.e., Mr. Mottershead’s] trust of the Ethics Committee relevant? Who gave you the right to speak for all other USCF members. As part of our governance we decided to have an Ethics Committee. In ignoring that, YOU BROKE your trust with ALL members.

[…]

Kevin Bachler

kbachler

Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:08 pm
USCFId: 10854164

[…]
Postby gregory on Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:05 pm #73123
Hi Donna,

Sam posted my address on the usenet forums, and has posted alot of other stuff on other members as well. I feel for you, but you are not unique in this regard. Unfortunately, nasty politics can pull in innocent members into this type of mess.

I thought they would not understand the technical evidence, that they would be cowed by the inevitable Polgar/Truong counter-attack and bullying, and that all this would be going on out of the public eye, where I would be subjected to the same kind of relentless attacks that are now public, only without any support.

Moreover, what useful powers would the Ethics Committee have? In the unlikely event that they could be brought to understand the evidence after the inevitable obfuscation and deflection campaign, withstand the pressure, and vote to censure Truong, that would not remove him from the Executive Board. Do you think he would be honorable about it, like Tanner, and simply resign after an EC vote against him? It seemed to me that it would be inevitable that this matter would end up in the lap of the EB after long tortured months, and that the matter would finally be resolved in the court of public opinion. I decided to short-circuit all of that and start with public opinion, rather than ending with it.

I should add that I reject the notion that the approach I chose instead of the Ethics Committee was not a proper one. In what way was it improper to disclose to the public the general nature of my conclusions?

Let’s start with the last: you gained the knowledge while working for the USCF and subject to a non-disclosure agreement. That suggests a responsibilitiy to abide by the organization’s rules for use of information. I understand that there might be reasons to not follow protocol, but this wasn’t a situation where corporate bad acts were indicated – why exactly couldn’t the system be used, at least at the start?

Second, you weren’t elected or appointed to make the decisions as to whether to “short circuit all of that” and make this a public issue. Do you understand how much this has diverted attention and how difficult it has made it to focus on other issues? Do you really think this is the most important issue facing the USCF? isn’t it possible that we might have resolved this without so much Board attention if proper channels had been used?

I also find it highly ironic that you complain that the EB did not dot all its i’s and cross its t’s in obtaining your voluntary leave before announcing it – it’s a little late for you to start complaining about due process. I’m also mindful of the fact that you have had sharp disagreements with Paul Truong around the last election.

Recall that last year, the system did work, and it resolved itself amicably. I do not believe that you were the proper source to decide whether it might or might not have resolved itself in that fashion again.
Randy Bauer

As an American of Russian/Armenian descent I find it incredible the depth of incompetency, lunacy and shallowness of the leading chess orginazition in the US. The long boring and meaningless posts here only proves this further. All the bickering and hatred kills the spirit. Furthermore, except for Susan Polgar, none of the other big mouths even know how to play at GM level!

The whole issue is simply an ego trip for one individual. The structure of the USCF has become one which , IMO, is unmanageable due to the egos involved. True change and improvement in the USCF will be quashed by those clinging to the old ways.

The Mission Statement of the USCF does little but serve as an excuse for non profit status. There is a growing movement and outcry for an alternative to the USCF.(Many from inside the USCF’s inner circle itself).

If a fruit is bruised, you can cut out the bad part and still have something useful. If the fruits core is rotten, waht is left then to save?

In My opinion, the unauthorized actions by one person and the usual gadfly performance of another has destroyed the best chance for reform and survival of the USCF. What replaces it will become the future model for all national/international bodies politic of chess.
Rob Mitchell

reposting John Hillery’s comment (which makes a lot of sense to me) from USCF Issues Forum:

Post by rfeditor on Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:55 pm #73054

1) The reason Brian M gives for the initial investigation (tracking down “cross-posters”) is very thin. The USCF holds no copyright on forum posts, and the members have given no pledge of confidentiality. Certainly I haven’t, and I’m not going to. Re-posting things with changes made is certainly improper, but it’s not the USCF’s business. If you claim that it is, you must logically also claim that the USCF has the right/duty to censor print publications by USCF members as well. Good luck with that one. If Brian wanted to track down persons who had behaved unethically on Usenet on his own time and with his own resources, fine. If he did so as an agent of the USCF and with USCF resources, he was out of line, and so was anyone who authorized or directed him to do so.

2) Once he saw that the evidence might point to misconduct by a sitting Board member, and one whose election he had publicly opposed, he should have immediately recused yourself and brought it to the attention of the EB. By proceeding as he did, he tainted the evidence. There is no way to dispel the suspicion that this was a political stunt seeking to reverse the result of an election. If this is true, he (and anyone who knw what he was doing) was grossly out of line. If it’s not true, his grandstanding has only made it more difficult to bring the culprit to account.

3) Were Brian’s actions a violation of his NDA? I don’t know. Were they in the best interests of the USCF? Obviously not. Whatever his intentions (we know where that road leads), the result has been another crank lawsuit by the egregious Sloan, followed by lots of lousy publicity in the general media. Perhaps he lacked sufficient experience with the USCF to have predicted this, but his superiors should have been able to. Would the same have happened if he had handled the matter properly, by presenting his evidence and claims privately to the EB? I guess we’ll never know.

Just a passing question? Have you ever seen monkeys dance when the organ grinder starts the music. I wonder about all of the comments condemning the USCF. The term USCF includes over 70,000 members and alot of good volunteers in the USCF. They do not deserve to be questioned because of a few bad apples. Pick the bad apples toss them into the garbage ,and go about saving the tree. IMHO

Everyone stop having a panic attack. The USCF’s main duty is to run rated events, and supply everyone with a USCF rating. They do a fine job of this and will continue to do so despite any bad publicity they get. You think 99.9% of USCF rated players give a crap about this nonsense? Obviously not.

All of this is meaningless, it’s not as if the USCF was going to get some big multimillion dollar sponsors otherwise, regardless of what the author of this article may lead you to believe.

All of those who think that this incident will mark the “end” of the USCF are completely out of their minds. There is no one even close to being able to step up and do the job that the USCF does in terms of running rated events.

Of course the USCF does a terrible job in supporting strong talented juniors and professional chess, but that is not their main function, and hopefully someone else will step up and do that.

Frankly less than 1% of chess players care at all about chess politics, yet those who do somehow think that 80-90% of players care.

Let me make a criticism of the NY Times coverage of this issue. Anyone who would take a statement from Sam Sloan as straight reportage, is so far out of the chess scene, as to question their wit!

The issue raised here has been pointed out by Steve Ownes as false in 3 respects. Not innocently false, but as agit-prop material.

The NY Times should perhaps check any objective opinion in the chess world before giving credence to such nonsense and falsehoods as reported here.

The question, and my criticism, is why it has not done so? Is the paper another ambulance chaser, seeling dnothing more than sensation? Your correspondent is weak on chess matters, politics and play of the game, and why do you continue such representation of our game, except to further a little furor, raised by very questionable agents, at the expense of those who would genuinely forward chess in the USA?

Please consider your own editorial attitude which, by evidence here, is indecently researched in repeating and representing chess orientation in this country.

I wrote here before, that for whatever psychological reason, US does not want to acknowledge its own history in the game, preferring some tragic and egoic writing to truth.

While such self deprecating attitudes, or failures of nerve, now exist as widespread factors in US culture, by all means, let us hear from those who do not share such self-defeatist opinion, and would propose otherwise!

Mr. Innes,
I’d like to respond.
First, a mea culpa. Mr. Owens was correct, the impersonations were only on the Usenet bulletin boards, which was correct in the original newspaper article. Mr. Mottershead said that he compared the IP addresses of postings in the U.S.C.F. member forum to those on Usenet in order to try to identify the person or persons who might be responsible for the fake postings.
I am not sure in what sense you mean that the issue raised here is false in three respects; this is only one by my count.
The Times quoted Mr. Sloan in the article because his opinion, as the filer of the lawsuit, had to be heard. It is a matter of normal journalistic practice. It is the same reason that Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar were also quoted.
The article was triggered by the filing of a lawsuit. Concerning Mr. Sloan, the story included some aspects of his checkered past, to wit, his prior conviction and imprisonment. But, the lawsuit is based on a report by Mr. Mottershead, whose credibility was not at issue. Whether that report proves that Mr. Truong was the impersonator is something that may have to be decided in court.
Any case is decided on its merits, that is if it goes to trial. The lawsuit is, as a matter of record, a real legal matter.
In addition to Mr. Sloan’s lawsuit, there was also Mr. Lafferty, a former administrative judge, saying that he intended to go the U.S. Attorney’s office, which he has now done.
Finally, regarding chess coverage in The Times in general, the paper has published articles on a wide variety of topics relating to the game in this country and abroad over the last two years, including doing daily analysis of world championship events.
In addition, The Times has published articles based on my interviews with the last four world champions (Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov and Anand) and I regularly speak with many people who are important members of the chess community.
I am a journalist and I write and report articles based on their relevance. The editors who supervise me and worked on this story made the same determinations.
Incidentally, for years, I have had cordial relations with Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong. I have previously covered Ms. Polgar’s accomplishments and also quoted her at length in my coverage of the Kramnik-Topalov match.
This was simply an important story.
I hope I have addressed your concerns.

Chess in the US is so unsuportive it matters little who is running the USCF. Ratings system, and minor little tournements is their limit. As serious as a March-of-Dimes charity walk. Or like the Jamaican bobsled team. 9 out of 10 top players in country were born elsewhere.

Mr. arshile, Cannot only ,not spell supportive, But seems to know little about the USCF. As far as 9 of the top 10 players in the country being borned elsewhere ,they did chose to live here didn’t they. As far as a March of Dimes charity walk being not serious , let us hope he never needs the help of the March of Dimes. What seems of the least importance to this USCF member ,is Mr arshile’s misinformed comment.IMHO

Literacy means expanding our society’s ability to read and write chess notation. This opens up the vast ocean of chess literature to those who care to read it. It allows us to record games and study them, and provides a pathway towards improvement.

Excellence means advancing the art, science and sporting aspects of the game.

The USCF is failing, when measured against its own mission statement. I’ve served on the boards of both the USCF and FIDE, and I cannot tell you which organization is worse.

It is extremely difficult to attract not only sponsors, but simply qualified professionals to serve in any leadship capacity. They do a little due diligence, and then they decline to get involved.

That is why issues, such as this one, matter. The USCF systematically drives away the very people it needs most. It can and should be doing better.

Chess isn’t much yet in this country, and is indeed a ‘sleeping giant’. But what we got here is like some McCarthite episode of accusations which would keep it so, be it ever so modest.

I have been unable to determine that anyone currently making accusations against Mr. Truong has the slightest interest in discovering who any impersonater is, other than an evident wish to implicate Mr. Truong, and him alone. What other parties [Mottershead, for example] may claim or propose is not evidence in any legal sense, and if deposed, may not meet legal requirements for such.

Instead of trying to bury this issue, I recommend you continue to investigate it. It is some real life variant of William Gibson’s ‘Spooks’ novel, about the power of anonymity.

For myself I also know the accused parties, and am also a journalist, reaching 35,000 chess players per week.

There are rather more people than that who, by virtue of their direct experience of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, who would like me, think what is proposed as their sin, is so far from any pattern of their behavior, to be laughable. If indeed any McCarthite with-hunt can be so termed.

Once again, much thanks your attention to my note, and I recommend you, and your editors, continued invigilation on who says what, and why!

[quote=”gregory”]PS Paul and Susan are not even in Texas, but this is another matter.[/quote]

Right. The Fake Sam Sloan posted today to rgcp from an IP address in New York City.

On Oct 14, 8:14 am, samsloan wrote:

> I am still here!

The above is by The Fake Sam Sloan. He is posting from IP 205.188.116.75 which is in New York City.

He thinks that this proves that he is not Paul Truong. Actually, it accomplishes the opposite because it proves that Susan Polgar is not an innocent victim but rather is involved in this because now she has been alerted to what Paul is doing during all those hours he is spending hunched over his computer.

Recent events have led to charges and counter-charges about false postings on chess websites that may involve USCF members and improper activity by independent contractors working for the USCF. At this time, it must be stressed that none of these claims can be independently substantiated, and the USCF does not support them. The USCF apologizes for any unintended resulting actions.

The USCF takes seriously its need to protect the privacy of its members and is actively investigating the charges of violation of its privacy policies and actions of its members. The individuals who may have violated these policies have agreed, as of today, to suspend their duties with the USCF until these issues are resolved.

The USCF is in the process of hiring an independent subject matter expert to determine the validity of the claims expressed above. After their review of all relevant information, the Executive Board will determine whether further action is warranted.

As there was a misunderstanding and no one agreed to suspend duties until Oct 10, I move the following:

Correction: the EB motion of October 8 contained an error. No one had agreed to a suspension of duties at the time of the motion. Subsequently on October 10, one person agreed to a suspension of duties.

Bill Goichberg

I wonder whether this is really necessary, but for the sake of not wasting time on what is basically a technicality, I vote yes.

Randy Bauer

Abstain.

What's Next

About

In its 1,500-year history, chess has imbedded itself in the world's culture and vocabulary. Ideas, terms and images from the game have long been used as proxies for intelligence and complexity. But chess is more than a diversion. Thousands worldwide play professionally or earn a living by teaching it to children. The Internet has transformed the game, making it easy for players anywhere to find an opponent day or night. Chess computers, originally developed to test the bounds of artificial intelligence, now play better than grandmasters. This blog will cover tournaments and events, trends and developments. Reader comments and questions will be more than welcome.

With an easy draw in the penultimate round, Hikaru Nakamura preserved his lead, while Viswanathan Anand, the world champion, was lucky to escape with a draw against a 16-year-old grandmaster. Read more…